Literature DB >> 25324160

Unraveling additive from nonadditive effects using genomic relationship matrices.

Patricio R Muñoz1, Marcio F R Resende2, Salvador A Gezan3, Marcos Deon Vilela Resende4, Gustavo de Los Campos5, Matias Kirst6, Dudley Huber3, Gary F Peter7.   

Abstract

The application of quantitative genetics in plant and animal breeding has largely focused on additive models, which may also capture dominance and epistatic effects. Partitioning genetic variance into its additive and nonadditive components using pedigree-based models (P-genomic best linear unbiased predictor) (P-BLUP) is difficult with most commonly available family structures. However, the availability of dense panels of molecular markers makes possible the use of additive- and dominance-realized genomic relationships for the estimation of variance components and the prediction of genetic values (G-BLUP). We evaluated height data from a multifamily population of the tree species Pinus taeda with a systematic series of models accounting for additive, dominance, and first-order epistatic interactions (additive by additive, dominance by dominance, and additive by dominance), using either pedigree- or marker-based information. We show that, compared with the pedigree, use of realized genomic relationships in marker-based models yields a substantially more precise separation of additive and nonadditive components of genetic variance. We conclude that the marker-based relationship matrices in a model including additive and nonadditive effects performed better, improving breeding value prediction. Moreover, our results suggest that, for tree height in this population, the additive and nonadditive components of genetic variance are similar in magnitude. This novel result improves our current understanding of the genetic control and architecture of a quantitative trait and should be considered when developing breeding strategies.
Copyright © 2014 by the Genetics Society of America.

Entities:  

Keywords:  G-BLUP; GenPred; Genomic selection; dominance relationship matrix; nonadditive; realized relationship matrices; shared data resource

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25324160      PMCID: PMC4256785          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.114.171322

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  30 in total

1.  The mystery of missing heritability: Genetic interactions create phantom heritability.

Authors:  Or Zuk; Eliana Hechter; Shamil R Sunyaev; Eric S Lander
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix.

Authors:  B J Hayes; P M Visscher; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.588

3.  Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigree.

Authors:  Gustavo de los Campos; Hugo Naya; Daniel Gianola; José Crossa; Andrés Legarra; Eduardo Manfredi; Kent Weigel; José Miguel Cotes
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-03-16       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

Authors:  P M VanRaden
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.034

5.  Using clonal replicates to explore genetic variation in a perennial plant species.

Authors:  G S Foster; D V Shaw
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 5.699

6.  Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers.

Authors:  José Crossa; Gustavo de Los Campos; Paulino Pérez; Daniel Gianola; Juan Burgueño; José Luis Araus; Dan Makumbi; Ravi P Singh; Susanne Dreisigacker; Jianbing Yan; Vivi Arief; Marianne Banziger; Hans-Joachim Braun
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-09-02       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Animal model estimation of additive and dominance variances in egg production traits of poultry.

Authors:  M Wei; J H van der Werf
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height.

Authors:  Jian Yang; Beben Benyamin; Brian P McEvoy; Scott Gordon; Anjali K Henders; Dale R Nyholt; Pamela A Madden; Andrew C Heath; Nicholas G Martin; Grant W Montgomery; Michael E Goddard; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2010-06-20       Impact factor: 38.330

9.  Evaluation of the utility of diagonal elements of the genomic relationship matrix as a diagnostic tool to detect mislabelled genotyped animals in a broiler chicken population.

Authors:  R Simeone; I Misztal; I Aguilar; A Legarra
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 2.380

10.  Estimation of non-additive genetic variances in three synthetic lines of beef cattle using an animal model.

Authors:  F A Rodríguez-Almeida; L D Van Vleck; R L Willham; S L Northcutt
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.159

View more
  58 in total

1.  Modeling Epistasis in Genomic Selection.

Authors:  Yong Jiang; Jochen C Reif
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-07-27       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Integrating Nonadditive Genomic Relationship Matrices into the Study of Genetic Architecture of Complex Traits.

Authors:  Alireza Nazarian; Salvador A Gezan
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2015-12-27       Impact factor: 2.645

3.  Modeling additive and non-additive effects in a hybrid population using genome-wide genotyping: prediction accuracy implications.

Authors:  J-M Bouvet; G Makouanzi; D Cros; Ph Vigneron
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  Epistasis and covariance: how gene interaction translates into genomic relationship.

Authors:  Johannes W R Martini; Valentin Wimmer; Malena Erbe; Henner Simianer
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 5.699

5.  Multikernel linear mixed model with adaptive lasso for complex phenotype prediction.

Authors:  Yalu Wen; Qing Lu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Orthogonal Estimates of Variances for Additive, Dominance, and Epistatic Effects in Populations.

Authors:  Zulma G Vitezica; Andrés Legarra; Miguel A Toro; Luis Varona
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  GenoMatrix: A Software Package for Pedigree-Based and Genomic Prediction Analyses on Complex Traits.

Authors:  Alireza Nazarian; Salvador Alejandro Gezan
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 2.645

8.  Efficient Algorithms for Calculating Epistatic Genomic Relationship Matrices.

Authors:  Yong Jiang; Jochen C Reif
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Genetic Variance Partitioning and Genome-Wide Prediction with Allele Dosage Information in Autotetraploid Potato.

Authors:  Jeffrey B Endelman; Cari A Schmitz Carley; Paul C Bethke; Joseph J Coombs; Mark E Clough; Washington L da Silva; Walter S De Jong; David S Douches; Curtis M Frederick; Kathleen G Haynes; David G Holm; J Creighton Miller; Patricio R Muñoz; Felix M Navarro; Richard G Novy; Jiwan P Palta; Gregory A Porter; Kyle T Rak; Vidyasagar R Sathuvalli; Asunta L Thompson; G Craig Yencho
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Assessing the expected response to genomic selection of individuals and families in Eucalyptus breeding with an additive-dominant model.

Authors:  R T Resende; M D V Resende; F F Silva; C F Azevedo; E K Takahashi; O B Silva-Junior; D Grattapaglia
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 3.821

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.